For full functionality of our forum it is necessary to enable Javascript in your browser. If you're not sure about how to do this you will find easy to understand instructions at: http://www.enable-javascript.com

It makes sense to concentrate on fewer centres with surgeons who regularly conduct these type of operations. The problem is where is the best place for these centres to be. A Guardian article in 2012 makes a case for retaining Leeds. The last sentence of that article "You put the doctors where the people are. You don't shunt the people to where the doctors are." seems reasonable.

"If you are going to have a heart surgery centre then logic states you place it in the centre of the country not on the coast."

You say that because you don't understand the factors involved. It's not simply a question of saying that we'll have a children's heart surgery centre in the geographic middle of the country, and spending a small fortune on new buildings in the middle of nowhere.

Staff have to travel to and from work easily, the centres have to be within easy reach of other medical facilities in case they're needed, and the surgeons have to be near at hand and on call. What logic really states is that you place these centres where most of the facilities and staff already exist, and then enhance things with greater resources. Taking very sick children across country to a place where they will stand a better chance of survival is not the problem. The children - who are the patients - should be placed at the head of the list of considerations, and certainly before the emotive demands of parents who don't understand any of the medical implications.

Perhaps, if this goes ahead, then reasonably priced or free basic accommodation should be available for a parent to stay with the child at the hospital. Such facilities are sometimes already available in some hospitals for relatives,and this would alleviate some of the concerns, together with help for travel costs.

I often wonder if some of the people who make certain statements, have actually had to travel long distances for medical help.

fourm member goes onto say "sound scientific studies", yet were is the evidence of these so called "sound scientific studies". Because from my own experiences and those of a similar nature, these "sound scientific studies" are always ongoing, and open to further consultation and scrutiny.Liverpool Pathway was and perhaps still regarded in some sectors as "sound scientific studies". But there was a program on television the other evening, that as now brought great doubts about how Liverpool Pathway is being administered. And these doubts are being brought by some of the same people who were perhaps originally in favour of this.

Fourm member then makes a statement about a primary school crossing, a child's death and "Would it take 20 years to sort out the problem". I am not sure why that was brought into the discussion, because had he done his homework he would have perhaps had his answer.

So perhaps I should provide an 'hearsay' to that, but if he or anyone else requires facts, then I would willing provide the council and councillor's details, because I have a running battle with our local council on very similar 'road safety and improvement' issues (I would point out,that I am very well known by the council and some members of the public, for challenging council or council officer's decisions). The local council did a major road improvement scheme, that was on the books for many years, and was held back due to government funding, and at the same time sold an old and well known and used primary school, so that a modern school could be built on the site, using private funding. Part of that agreement to planning was road safety (as a top priority) in and on the major traffic routes in the area. Funding was provided for a toucan crossing, a series of road humps plus mini-islands. The council clearly stated that the projects had been completed on time and well within budget. This was not the case, and the council had to finally admit (under pressure) that funding had ran out, even though it had been provided by private investment. Over the last 5/6 year period, I and a number of other campaigner's have managed to get a toucan crossing outside the school, we are still waiting for a decision about the mini-island, which is a major access point from a large estate.

But going back to the original subject. If these centres are closed and possibly relocated elsewhere, what are the predictions as what will or most likely happen. Some doctor's and surgeon's as well as other staff will be surplus to requirements. Already there are serious complaints about bed shortages and staff within some hospitals, yet by decisions, this is like putting all your chicken's in one basket, it as very little to do with expertise. In the case of Leicester Glenfield, it already as its expertise, and this as been recognised on many occasions.

On a personal note, I am on a Cardiovascular Biochemical Research Project, which is a possible twenty year project for heart problems. I am one of many like minded guinea pig's for that project, which hopefully will save life when I have long gone. If this project was to move further a field, I could also perhaps adopt a very selfish attitude, and say stuff it, let people die?.

You are correct, but some hospitals cannot provide accommodation or family facilities, and people then have to find alternatives, which can be difficult if you don't know the area, or your live far away.

Car parking and spaces at many hospitals are at an high, with charges and fines that are bringing many complaints.

Reply to this topic

This thread has been locked.

For full functionality of our forum it is necessary to enable Javascript in your browser. If you're not sure about how to do this you will find easy to understand instructions at: http://www.enable-javascript.com